HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. M/s. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd., Padi Chennai
Civil Appeal Nos. 5950–5952 of 2007
[2007] 13 (Addl.) SCR 958 ·
32A · 43A(1)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. · P. Sathasivam, J.
Assessment years: 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93
01 · Facts of the case
Three appeals concerned AYs 1989-90, 1991-92 and 1992-93. The AO considered investment allowance allowable in one assessment year rather than several. The Tribunal and High Court appeared to rely on section 43A(1) to permit allowance in different years. The High Court dismissed Revenue’s appeals as covered by Southern Asbestos Cement Ltd. The Supreme Court report supplies no independent asset inventory, claim amount or complete computation history (paragraphs 2–3).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The judgment reproduces the historical section 32A scheme at length, including the acquisition/installation or first-use timing, the conditional carry-forward mechanism and reserve requirements. That reproduction is statutory background, not a separate adjudication of every listed condition or a universal holding that allowance can never be used in more than one year (paragraph 4).
Revenue submitted that section 43A(1) concerned exchange fluctuations and their effect on asset valuation, which did not answer the disputed section 32A timing question. The assessee’s counsel accepted that position. On that basis the Court required the High Court to formulate the relevant question of law and adjudicate afresh, rather than finally deciding the allowance on the incomplete analysis below (paragraphs 5–7).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
03 · Judicial decision
The High Court’s order was set aside and the matter remitted to that Court for fresh adjudication after formulation of the question of law. All three appeals were allowed only to that extent, without costs. No final allowance, disallowance, amount or comprehensive rule about one-year versus multi-year utilisation was fixed (paragraphs 7–8).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Revenue procedurally, to obtain fresh High Court adjudication
Three appeals allowed to the stated extent; High Court order set aside; remitted to High Court to frame and decide the legal question; no costs
Remand; ultimate section 32A entitlement and timing not finally determined
Section 43A asset valuation alone did not dispose of the disputed section 32A issue. No blanket prohibition of statutory carry-forward, no final allowance quantum, and no verified post-remand result.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Separate asset-cost adjustments from the statutory year of entitlement and from carry-forward of unabsorbed allowance. The cited valuation precedent cannot substitute for identifying the exact section 32A question. Read this as a direction to perform that analysis, not as Revenue’s final substantive victory or a universal single-year rule.
The lengthy statutory quotation does not establish present availability of investment allowance, a current rate, or the correct version for a different year. Obtain the underlying orders and applicable text before building a computation; the remand outcome has not been checked.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
Proposition-specific source paragraphs and PDF pages
- topic
- Identity, three appeals, years and issue
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 2
- paragraphs
- Cover; jurisdiction; 1–3
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
- topic
- Historical timing and carry-forward scheme
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14
- paragraphs
- 4
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Specific carry-forward language
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 8; 9
- paragraphs
- 4, reproduced section 32A(3)
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Concession and exact High Court remand
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 14
- paragraphs
- 5–8
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Headnote paragraph-reference mismatch
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 2; 14
- paragraphs
- Headnote; judicial paragraphs 5–8
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
Additional statutory context, not separate holdings
- 32A
- Historical investment allowance, including the quoted timing, carry-forward and reserve provisions; ultimate application remitted.
- 43A(1)
- Foreign-exchange effect on asset valuation; not by itself the answer to the disputed year-of-allowance issue.
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.Act identified in the reviewed source
Income-tax Act, 1961Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 14 PDF pages; SHA-256 f2c7f8f43b3719926371c32b7052a3542ebcf48be10f1443d4ecc4be05640524. Original bytes preserved. Judicial paragraphs 1–8 on physical pages 2–14 (SCR 959–971). Paragraph 4 is the extended statutory reproduction on pages 3–14. Page 1 and page 2 above the author line are reporter material. No adjacent judgment.
- The report is 14 pages but the judicial reasoning is short; most pages reproduce historical section 32A. Length is not evidence of an extensive final merits holding.; Paragraph 4 introduces sections 32A and 43A(1) together, but the preserved rendition prints section 32A and then moves to paragraph 5 without a separately reproduced section 43A(1) text. No missing statutory text is supplied.; The headnote on page 2 attributes the remand proposition to paragraph 5, while the judicial concession and disposition appear in paragraphs 6–8. Judicial paragraph pinpoints control.; The quoted section 32A(3) itself addresses conditional carry-forward. The AO’s one-year view is case history, not a final Supreme Court prohibition of every allowance across years.; Southern Asbestos is described in this judgment only; its original judgment and this case’s post-remand outcome were not independently reviewed.
Statutory scope
Current statutory equivalence and 2025 Act applicability have not been verified.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. No comprehensive subsequent judicial or statutory audit. Only actually checked comparisons are separately identified and bounded; no current-law or Income-tax Act, 2025 certification.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 14 pages
SHA-256: f2c7f8f43b3719926371c32b7052a3542ebcf48be10f1443d4ecc4be05640524
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.